By what other metric is efficacy evaluated in a democratic system?
How about what they're actually getting done once they're in office? Which isn't much.
You and highroller seems to be focusing solely on the fact that they're getting elected. Winning the race is like a job interview, it just gets you into a position to do work, which they aren't doing. Republicans lately seem more interested in fighting Obama and spouting rhetoric than actually accomplishing anything of measure.
There's plenty of blame to go around though. I think the majority of us are generally dissatisfied with both parties. I certainly am.
They missed the mark on Spider-Man too IMO. Not the way the character portrayed, that was great, but the way he was used in the story. He was a big central part of the story in the comics, and his arch was a big deal in the story, and they didn't touch on it at all in the movie. Kind of a missed opportunity.
It was never meant to be a full retread of the comic book. It would need to be much much longer and have many more characters to even come close to that (how would they explain the mecha thor to movie goers lol) I am pleased with the story they made that was inspired by the comic though. I agree with the earlier statement as well, it almost could have been labeled better as an iron man film since most of the character sympathy (in my opinion at least) goes to tony. But the movie as a whole stems a lot from the events of winter soldier so it would have been a bit odd to see an iron man movie about a capt america side kick/villain.
Yeah I know, and I agree it would have been too much to make it exactly like the comics. But I do wish they'd have put more time into the non-fighting part of the story. Specifically the impact it had on the characters lives away from being a super hero. But I suppose that too wouldn't have fit in the time constraints they had to work with. Mostly I'm just bummed about the way Spiderman was used. In the comics he was central to the story in a big way.
specifically the way he switched sides half way through the story. In the movie he's not pivotal to the story at all and the movie wouldn't have been any different at all had he not been in it.
But like I said, I like it overall and I'll add it to my collection when it comes out for purchase.
Just saw it last night. I enjoyed it. It wasn't the best Marvel movie ever but certainly not the worst either.
My only real gripe is they didn't take some of the better aspects of the story from the comics. Its been a while since I read the comics but I remember Iron Man being a bigger part of the story than Cap. I think it would have worked better as "Iron Man: Civil War" or even "Avengers: Civil War".
I'd have preferred to see more about the actual split and ideological arguments being made and less of Cap and Falcon chasing down Bucky.
They missed the mark on Spider-Man too IMO. Not the way the character portrayed, that was great, but the way he was used in the story. He was a big central part of the story in the comics, and his arch was a big deal in the story, and they didn't touch on it at all in the movie. Kind of a missed opportunity.
I really liked Chadwick Boseman. I thought he did a great job as Black Panther and it makes me a lot more excited for that solo movie.
My feeling on the matter is likely influenced by the fact that I've never been a fan of decks that rely too much on their general. I guess I'll always think a deck falling to pieces w/out that ONE card is stupid.
It does highlight a problem with the way the rules committee handles things in my opinion. Fun to one person might be the complete opposite of fun for another. If they focused on balance instead of fun I think it would be a better way to run the format.
I just learned about this change after a couple years away. In my opinion this change is just stupid. Decks should be balance and not fall to pieces the second the commander is gone. But rather than encourage people to build balanced decks and play smart they nerf the game instead. Ridiculous.
If your deck can entirely function without your commander, why do you have a commander? So you can jam the best cards in your favorite color combo and roll face?
Because EDH/Commander is the most popular singleton format there is and it's required. It's the same reason I only use the cards I open in sealed, or stuff from the most recent sets in standard. Gotta play the format.
And to your second question, it just depends on what I'm trying to do with the deck. You can make a deck that has a theme and fun interactions with the cards that doesn't completely revolve around one card. For example, when I play my Rhyss token deck I generally don't bother to play him past the early game, if at all, and the deck works just fine.
And I stand by my statement, I don't think a deck should only work when it has access to one card. My Kaalia deck relies on the commander more than any deck I've ever made but if she ever got tucked I could still pull out a win because I had enough other ways to cheat dudes in along with good removal and mana ramp.
I just think everything falling to pieces because you can't play one percent of your deck is lazy deck building and lazy playing. Think of a way out of the problem rather than just playing the same card over and over.
I just learned about this change after a couple years away. In my opinion this change is just stupid. Decks should be balance and not fall to pieces the second the commander is gone. But rather than encourage people to build balanced decks and play smart they nerf the game instead. Ridiculous.
I played this deck once or twice right before a long absence from the game. It needs a lot of work and I don't know that it will get it. This deck will most likely get scrapped and forgotten.
I played this deck once or twice right before a long absence from the game. It needs a lot of work and I don't know that it will get it. This deck will most likely get scrapped and forgotten.
I think the deck could also be improved by taking out some of the redundant ways to repeatably turn mana into tokens, as having two in play isn't helpful. Like Nemata, VGG, mobilization. Not all of them, but 2 or 3. Would also look into cutting Silklash Spider.
Captain Sisay can find you Elesh Norn, Kamahl, Cradle, Trostani, etc.
As Pochette said, you don't need too many cards to dump mana in to make tokens. Rhys does that already, and you'd only use those if Rhys died too many times or got tucked.
At first glance your best cards look like Gaea's cradle and Earthcraft, since those are the ones that generate you tons of mana. I would throw in a handful of cards that can find them. You've got good ways to tutor for earthcraft but not many to find Cradle. Sylvan Scrying gets Cradle and so does sisay.
Also, hour of reckoning is interesting. You may want this over one of your other sweepers
Don't like faith's fetters. Why not just play something like beast within or oblation?
+ Harmonize
+ Sylvan Library
+ Mentor of the Meek
+ Cathars' Crusade
+ Kamahl, Fist of Krosa
+ Captain Sisay or Sylvan Scrying (to find gaea's cradle)
+ Hour of Reckoning (remove a sweeper for this)
+ Beast Within/Oblation (remove faith's fetters)
Remove some of the mana sink token generators.
Well after being absent from the game for two years I'm finally looking to update some decks. Some of the things in here that appear out of the norm are to help against my specific play group. Anyway...
Condemn tucks away generals, path does not. Path also gives them land which is a much more useful resource for them than life. I like both but for EDH I'll choose condemn first every time.
Kjedoran outpost proved to be too slow for my liking. I used it for a long time but eventually cut it.
I like having multiple options for extra mana like any queen and mobilization and whatnot. 100 cards is a lot and I like to always have one of those out. Plus opponents like to kill them.
Kamahl was also used and was cut because he was basically a win more card. He worked for me when I was already ahead but didn't help much if I wasn't. That is a good point about defense for mass creature kill though.
Cathar's crusade is bonkers, but honestly it did a lot more than I needed it to in order to win, and keeping track of all those counters on the tokens was tedious. At the end of the day I'm a casual player in it for fun and that card was just too much of a pain.
I don't remember why mentor of the meek and sylvan library aren't in there. I honestly thought the library was so I'll have to fix that.
I used to use hour of reckoning but I pulled it for something cheaper. If there is a need to wipe the board early i don't want to have to pay more for it. I don't really care about losing my dudes, I'll make more.
I personally think oblation is overrated. Giving my opponents more cards is not something I want to do. Card advantage and mana are huge and I'll avoid giving them away as much as possible. Fetters is also another way to lock out their general. If I kill it with beast within they can just play it again. In my experience the fetters keeps their general out of the game longer than beast within does.
So there's my replies. Two years later. I will be updating the deck again soon.
Anyone thinking Superman is inherently boring because he's too powerful is looking at the character the wrong way. The drama doesn't come from his powers and his fights, it comes from his humanity and the constant emotional turmoil he lives with.
Superman is a guy who has nearly god like powers and could easily rule the world but doesn't. Instead he chooses to use his powers for good and to be a beacon of hope and morality to the world. And the kicker is, he doesn't want to do either! He he just wants to live a normal life, fit in, and not have the constant weight on his shoulders that being Superman creates.
The conflict in the story could be coming from people at large, and western governments, urging him to do more. To intervene in various military conflicts around the world and stop the evil bad guys and things of that nature (which could be done really well given today's geo-political landscape). This could make for a great movie with compelling drama because those are things Superman would never do because he knows it's not his place. He's not one to impose his will and beliefs and world views with force on people who disagree with him. That's not how the good guy does it. And while not intervening there's the inner turmoil because deep down he wants to reshape the world but he doesn't because it's not the right thing to do morally. He's not human so it's really not his place to dictate how the human race evolves and interacts with each other and governs each other. This is why he is force to deal with the micro and not the macro. Saving lives and stopping minor crimes is ok but taking down governments isn't.
This all leads into the drama of his relationship with Lex. Because unlike Superman, Lex would use the power to rule the world. And since he thinks this way, he is convinced that it's only a matter of time before Superman changes his tune and takes over. And in Lex's mind the only one on the planet fit to do that is Lex.
If the writers focused on these aspects of the characters the movie would be a hit and it would resonate with people. And it would still have room for Superman to show off his powers doing his thing saving lives. The climax could be some sort of evil plan hatched by Lex to make Superman look like the bad guy to the public by framing him for some sort of calamity that has Superman zipping around the world trying to stop.
Basically...to do Superman right his powers have to be a part of the story, not the reason for the story. The focus needs to be on the man, not the super hero.
Also the way Pa Kent is written in MoS is completely wrong. That just bugs me.
IMO the problem with both this movie, and The Man of Steel, comes down to mostly one thing: Snyder is the wrong guy for the job. He was a great choice for 300 and did ok on The Watchmen but he clearly doesn't have a clear understanding of the Superman and Batman characters that have been well defined for decades. The writing isn't best, and the acting for the most part is pretty sub par, but movies are ultimately driven by the director's vision, it's just how this medium works. Snyder's tone is all wrong. I also think part of the problem is that the powers that be at Warner Bros are trying too hard to compete with Marvel studios and they're rushing things into production instead of making sure they are good. And as a die hard Superman fan this bugs me a lot because Cavil could be the best Superman ever if they'd have given him a better script and a director who understands the character. Both movies are giant missed opportunities.
There's my two cents.
Jones's take downs aren't as good as Cormier's. He also tends to stand with opponents much more than Cormier does. Plus Jones is arrogant and prefers to engage opponents where they are strongest, he would have been much more likely to engage Rumble on the feet than Cormier was. The longer the fight stays standing, the better the chance for Rumble to land a bomb. Now again, I'm not say that Rumble would have beaten Jones for sure, but he'd have a better shot at beating Jones than he would at beating Cormier.
Oh jesus christ. It's the freshest example in my head cause the Werdum/Velasquez fight was recent. Quit being so damn nit picky, you know the point I'm making.
Rumble lost to Cormier pretty convincingly. Cormier got clowned by Jones. Get real.
MMAth doesn't work. Werdum lost to Dos Santos, Dos Santos lost to Velasquez, Velasquez lost to Werdum. There's plenty of other examples of this. Styles make fights, past wins/losses don't. Stylistically Cormier was a much tougher match up for Rumble than Jones. I'm not saying Rumble would have absolutely beaten Jones, but he'd have a better shot at beating Jones than at beating Cormier. It's a shame we didn't get to see that fight.
Anywho, I don't get hating on any fighters. The toughness and skill it takes to make it to the UFC is no joke. And these guys go through hellish training camps, endure all kinds of injuries, risk permanent damage every time they step into the cage, and do it all for our amusement. They're all great in my book.
I'll never understand statements like that. If you claim to be a fan of the sport even a little then saying things like that makes no sense. If he's a saint or a sinner outside the cage it doesn't matter. Inside the cage he's a genius and an artist. He's not the only one missing out with his suspension. Love him or hate him, you can't tell you didn't get excited any time he walked into the cage.
Same ***** he's been thinking... 2 DWIs, failed drug test for Cocaine, now this... Jones is a straight loser.
A loser doesn't become one of the most dominate champions the sport has ever seen. His personal life is indeed a mess and he definitely makes stupid decisions when he's not in the cage but to say he is a straight loser is quite a leap.
That being said, I completely support the UFC's decision to strip him of the title and suspend him. I just wish he'd have lost his title to getting KO'ed instead. Oh well.
How about what they're actually getting done once they're in office? Which isn't much.
You and highroller seems to be focusing solely on the fact that they're getting elected. Winning the race is like a job interview, it just gets you into a position to do work, which they aren't doing. Republicans lately seem more interested in fighting Obama and spouting rhetoric than actually accomplishing anything of measure.
There's plenty of blame to go around though. I think the majority of us are generally dissatisfied with both parties. I certainly am.
Yeah I know, and I agree it would have been too much to make it exactly like the comics. But I do wish they'd have put more time into the non-fighting part of the story. Specifically the impact it had on the characters lives away from being a super hero. But I suppose that too wouldn't have fit in the time constraints they had to work with. Mostly I'm just bummed about the way Spiderman was used. In the comics he was central to the story in a big way.
But like I said, I like it overall and I'll add it to my collection when it comes out for purchase.
My only real gripe is they didn't take some of the better aspects of the story from the comics. Its been a while since I read the comics but I remember Iron Man being a bigger part of the story than Cap. I think it would have worked better as "Iron Man: Civil War" or even "Avengers: Civil War".
I'd have preferred to see more about the actual split and ideological arguments being made and less of Cap and Falcon chasing down Bucky.
They missed the mark on Spider-Man too IMO. Not the way the character portrayed, that was great, but the way he was used in the story. He was a big central part of the story in the comics, and his arch was a big deal in the story, and they didn't touch on it at all in the movie. Kind of a missed opportunity.
I really liked Chadwick Boseman. I thought he did a great job as Black Panther and it makes me a lot more excited for that solo movie.
It does highlight a problem with the way the rules committee handles things in my opinion. Fun to one person might be the complete opposite of fun for another. If they focused on balance instead of fun I think it would be a better way to run the format.
Because EDH/Commander is the most popular singleton format there is and it's required. It's the same reason I only use the cards I open in sealed, or stuff from the most recent sets in standard. Gotta play the format.
And to your second question, it just depends on what I'm trying to do with the deck. You can make a deck that has a theme and fun interactions with the cards that doesn't completely revolve around one card. For example, when I play my Rhyss token deck I generally don't bother to play him past the early game, if at all, and the deck works just fine.
And I stand by my statement, I don't think a deck should only work when it has access to one card. My Kaalia deck relies on the commander more than any deck I've ever made but if she ever got tucked I could still pull out a win because I had enough other ways to cheat dudes in along with good removal and mana ramp.
I just think everything falling to pieces because you can't play one percent of your deck is lazy deck building and lazy playing. Think of a way out of the problem rather than just playing the same card over and over.
Well after being absent from the game for two years I'm finally looking to update some decks. Some of the things in here that appear out of the norm are to help against my specific play group. Anyway...
Condemn tucks away generals, path does not. Path also gives them land which is a much more useful resource for them than life. I like both but for EDH I'll choose condemn first every time.
Kjedoran outpost proved to be too slow for my liking. I used it for a long time but eventually cut it.
I like having multiple options for extra mana like any queen and mobilization and whatnot. 100 cards is a lot and I like to always have one of those out. Plus opponents like to kill them.
Kamahl was also used and was cut because he was basically a win more card. He worked for me when I was already ahead but didn't help much if I wasn't. That is a good point about defense for mass creature kill though.
Cathar's crusade is bonkers, but honestly it did a lot more than I needed it to in order to win, and keeping track of all those counters on the tokens was tedious. At the end of the day I'm a casual player in it for fun and that card was just too much of a pain.
I don't remember why mentor of the meek and sylvan library aren't in there. I honestly thought the library was so I'll have to fix that.
I used to use hour of reckoning but I pulled it for something cheaper. If there is a need to wipe the board early i don't want to have to pay more for it. I don't really care about losing my dudes, I'll make more.
I personally think oblation is overrated. Giving my opponents more cards is not something I want to do. Card advantage and mana are huge and I'll avoid giving them away as much as possible. Fetters is also another way to lock out their general. If I kill it with beast within they can just play it again. In my experience the fetters keeps their general out of the game longer than beast within does.
So there's my replies. Two years later. I will be updating the deck again soon.
Anyone thinking Superman is inherently boring because he's too powerful is looking at the character the wrong way. The drama doesn't come from his powers and his fights, it comes from his humanity and the constant emotional turmoil he lives with.
Superman is a guy who has nearly god like powers and could easily rule the world but doesn't. Instead he chooses to use his powers for good and to be a beacon of hope and morality to the world. And the kicker is, he doesn't want to do either! He he just wants to live a normal life, fit in, and not have the constant weight on his shoulders that being Superman creates.
The conflict in the story could be coming from people at large, and western governments, urging him to do more. To intervene in various military conflicts around the world and stop the evil bad guys and things of that nature (which could be done really well given today's geo-political landscape). This could make for a great movie with compelling drama because those are things Superman would never do because he knows it's not his place. He's not one to impose his will and beliefs and world views with force on people who disagree with him. That's not how the good guy does it. And while not intervening there's the inner turmoil because deep down he wants to reshape the world but he doesn't because it's not the right thing to do morally. He's not human so it's really not his place to dictate how the human race evolves and interacts with each other and governs each other. This is why he is force to deal with the micro and not the macro. Saving lives and stopping minor crimes is ok but taking down governments isn't.
This all leads into the drama of his relationship with Lex. Because unlike Superman, Lex would use the power to rule the world. And since he thinks this way, he is convinced that it's only a matter of time before Superman changes his tune and takes over. And in Lex's mind the only one on the planet fit to do that is Lex.
If the writers focused on these aspects of the characters the movie would be a hit and it would resonate with people. And it would still have room for Superman to show off his powers doing his thing saving lives. The climax could be some sort of evil plan hatched by Lex to make Superman look like the bad guy to the public by framing him for some sort of calamity that has Superman zipping around the world trying to stop.
Basically...to do Superman right his powers have to be a part of the story, not the reason for the story. The focus needs to be on the man, not the super hero.
Also the way Pa Kent is written in MoS is completely wrong. That just bugs me.
There's my two cents.
Oh jesus christ. It's the freshest example in my head cause the Werdum/Velasquez fight was recent. Quit being so damn nit picky, you know the point I'm making.
MMAth doesn't work. Werdum lost to Dos Santos, Dos Santos lost to Velasquez, Velasquez lost to Werdum. There's plenty of other examples of this. Styles make fights, past wins/losses don't. Stylistically Cormier was a much tougher match up for Rumble than Jones. I'm not saying Rumble would have absolutely beaten Jones, but he'd have a better shot at beating Jones than at beating Cormier. It's a shame we didn't get to see that fight.
Anywho, I don't get hating on any fighters. The toughness and skill it takes to make it to the UFC is no joke. And these guys go through hellish training camps, endure all kinds of injuries, risk permanent damage every time they step into the cage, and do it all for our amusement. They're all great in my book.
A loser doesn't become one of the most dominate champions the sport has ever seen. His personal life is indeed a mess and he definitely makes stupid decisions when he's not in the cage but to say he is a straight loser is quite a leap.
That being said, I completely support the UFC's decision to strip him of the title and suspend him. I just wish he'd have lost his title to getting KO'ed instead. Oh well.